"Embracive" is listed in the OED. It means, first, "Given to or fond of embracing; embracing demonstratively," but this is a "nonce-use." The quote, from 1855, from Thackeray, is "Not less kind..though less expansive and embracive, was Madame de Montcontour to my wife." The second meaning, going back to 1897, is "Embracing or tending to embrace all." Examples:

27 comments:

If Ginsburg ultimately intended to communicate the idea that "diversity" is an inherent and seminal feature of the constitution, she is directly refuted by both John Jay in Federalist 2, and the plain language of the preamble. The mass immigration from Western Europe was perfectly consistent with the values, intent, and ideals expressed in the constitution. The illegal mass immigration of rootless third-world vagabonds is an absolute betrayal of those same values and ideals.

God help us! (I mean that.) Doesn't Ginsburg know that our Constitution involves negative rights, as President Obama the Constitutional scholar taught us? I don't want the Government embracing me, it does enough of that already. Let it leave me alone, except insofar as it protects my life and property from enemies foreign and domestic, so that I am free to embrace, or not embrace, who and what I choose.

A quick Google search revealed that there are available both I heart Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and I heart Antonin Scalia tee shirts. Strangely there were also I hate Antonin Scalia tee shirts, but nothing in that category for RBG.

Remember when Ginburg said our Constitutionwas old and should not be used as a basis for the new Egyptian constitution? Look to South Africa she said. So, now it is just super? Make up your mind, please.

She used the word ‘embracive’ because the word ‘inclusive’, these days, might turn some people off.

People might turn her off.

The perception is that the word inclusive belongs to a cause. This other cause, claiming inclusiveness, has a different vantage point, seemingly from above, looking on at everything, including at me, and the me that felt like me, the character who participated in life, somehow did not know that inclusive had become exclusive.

Once you become aware of the absurd transformation of the word, you can integrate yourself, as the supreme Ruth Bader has, and become wise and knowing as she really is.

"So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning."I hope the clever Althouse readers detect that Ginsberg is talking about how she imagines herself, and not about the constitution. I am so tired of being subjected to the psychological needs of leftists.

Things don't just "get into" constitutions. The whole point of a constitution is to have a set of rules that are especially firm and especially hard to change, so they can be relied upon to withstand waves of popular opinion.

The only way a constitution "speaks to" a topic is if someone put something into the constitution to do that. A constitutional guarantee or restriction can't just coalesce from peoples' thoughts, aspirations, and dreams, no matter how noble or ig-.

That's why, for example, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The drafters of our Constitution certainly didn't put such a right into the Constitution, nor into the Bill of Rights or other amendments to it.

With due respect to her and her liberal colleagues, Madame Justice Ginsburg has never acknowledged, accepted, or applied this bedrock definitional principle. To the contrary, her view of a what's contained in a "constitution" is pretty much synonymous with "whatever me and my liberal buddies think is a good idea at any particular time." That's fine if you're Mao or Stalin; not so much if you're an Article III judge whose most sacred duty is interpreting and applying that Constitution.

Better to weave a new word from whole cloth, than to renovate a derelict one that has been left to decay in deserved obscurity. Victorian writers were prone to heavy, purple coinage that were lead slugs under the garish paint. This is, after all, the generation whose bent tastes inflicted Bulwer-Lytton upon an outraged posterity.